Bought a Nikon D40

[Newc]

Yeah... I agree some photographers can be camera snobs... not like us guitar guys are any better.

As for the complaint about the 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the Rebel, yes... it IS a POS. Chucked it in the trash can. Not a single piece of glass in that thing. Take it out in the AZ summer heat and you can practically watch the front lens warp.
My point an shoot Canon SD850 Elph takes clearer pictures.

When buying an SLR camera, the body is not what counts, it the lens.
Camera bodies are meant to be replaced, lenses are what you keep.

The Nikon D40 is a decent camera. The kit lens that comes with it is bottom of the line just like the kit lens that comes with the Rebel.

They were meant to get you up and running, nothing more.

Ah ok, so the lens would be comparable to the hardware and electronics on an import Jackson - good enough to get you started.

Seems to me the body would be most important, since a good camera with a crap lens could still take good pictures, but a crap camera with the best lens wouldn't.

[rjohnstone]

Seems to me the body would be most important, since a good camera with a crap lens could still take good pictures, but a crap camera with the best lens wouldn't.

Other way around.
Good camera with a crap lens will still take crappy pictures.
The real money is in the lens, not the camera body.
You can have the best $7k Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III body available and it will still produce a shitty picture if the lens is garbage.

Crappy cameras will always benefit from a better quality lens.

[Newc]

I'm sure that's the rule for film cameras, but surely the CCD/image processor inside a digital camera is the key?
:think:

[sixx_ gunner]

Nice grab Newc~
Just picked up a Canon Rebel XTi for the 'lil woman for Christmas. I am impressed. We looked at alot of cameras in person and spent hours in online forums. While it isn't the 12MP like the Xts, this will get her started down the road with some great features. She got the body, 18-55mm lens, macro len, 2x zoom,UV filter, 4GB & 8GB card, bag, three tripods & an extended 4 yr warranty where they clean this thing every 6 months etc, off of Evilbay for $600

Was trying to take some shots of the DK2 last night like from the locking nut down the length of the neck or from the trem fine tuners up the length of the neck. Apparently I am gonna have to crack ope that "For Dummies" book she scored! I didn't do so well, the focal points are kinda all over the place!

[roodyrocker]

Yep, lenses are the really expensive part. I have a Nikon 70-200 F2.8 that can take incredible shots in low light. Last year at NAMM I shot the Joe Satriani show with it and was not allowed to use flash. That F2.8 came in real handy and in combination with a monopod I stood by the guy running the spotlight. Took over 1,000 shots Thing is you really pay big time for that fixed F2.8.
On the Nikon vs. Cannon thing. They both make nice stuff but one thing Nikon did which was very smart is to keep the same lens mount for decades. Obviously some of the automatic functions don't work on an older body but the lens will fit the older camera and generally work in full manual mode. I have an older 300mm F2.8 manual lens that will fit on my DSLR Nikon bodies, which btw multiply the focal length and effectively turn it into a 450mm lens Thats the type of lens you'd see photographers on the sidelines in the NFL shooting with. I'm glad I can use it with my DSLR Nikon bodies. I don't think you can do that with Cannons although I'm no expert on them. Nikon has kept the same mount going clear back to 1959! And as others mentioned, the resolution is not dependant on just the megapixel count. If you look at that alone you can be fooled into thinking you have a better camera than you actually have. The sensor is important. Anyway, play with that D40 and see what happens

[Newc]

Roody - That's one of the things that drew me to the D40 - the "standardized" lens mount. One of the reviews I read mentioned it, and the reviewer said he used an old/vintage lens with it just fine (though he did stress it was manual-only, which is fine by me).

And yeah, those "bazooka" lenses are what drew me to this type in the first place

I almost grabbed a 35mm Rebel when the digital hit, because it dropped from $600+ down to $200 at WalMart (unopened in the display/stock case). But, I knew that film was going the way of the do-do, and there'd be no one to process it other than Wal* (Mart, Greens, etc).

I've compared film developed by WalMart against a real photolab (Seattle Filmworks) and the stuff from the photolab (from the same camera, using the same brand/format of film) looked tons better.

[rjohnstone]

Canon did change their mounts when they went to the DSLR.
The EF and EFS mounts are now standard on all Canon DSLR's.
I still have an old 35mm Canon AE1P with some serious glass that will smoke just about any DSLR out there.
The picture quality is still amazing. Just don't take it to the local 1 hour place for processing your film. Use a real lab.

[roodyrocker]

Yes you're right Newc. Custom photo labs will give better results than the 1 hour photo places. Its still sad to see film going away though. I like the convinience of digital and the ability to shoot tons more without paying more money. And the ability to just adjust film speed (ISO) on the fly is nice too, something you can't do with film. I still have my Nikon film cameras though, an N8008 and my first camera an N2000. When I first shot for the race car magazine I shoot for I was told to use only 100 speed slide film! That was tough shooting in varying lighting conditions and slide film is much less forgiving than even regular film. Keep in mind before digital you couldn't preview anything. You simply shot and developed later and thats when you found out if you got the shot or not. No going back to redo as by then the race was over and you probably developed the film/slide at home. Still, it taught me to pay attention and I got pretty good at guestimating my exposures
And I still have my old manual lenses because its a Nikon F mount. They work on my digital cameras. Which reminds me, I was shooting race cars and manually focusing at the same time with those lenses. We've come a long way! The one thing that has sadly gone away with the digital revolution is the distance lines on the lenses which also showed you the approximate zone of focus. These markings aren't put on most digital lenses. It probably doesn't mean a whole lot to you now but those were very handy.

[Newc]

Yeah, I read about the distance lines as well, and I've got a pretty good idea of how handy they could have been, and still would be today.

I browsed through the camera settings and changed my AF mode to Dynamic area. It was on Closest Subject before (thought that was "wide area" - my bad).

As well, when I took the pics of the switches earlier I was zoomed in tighter than the CD350 allowed, even in macro mode, which wasn't zoomed. So this time, I backed off the zoom and got it about the same distance as the CD350 was physically.



(scaled down to 30% in PaintShop but otherwise untouched)



Here's one from across the room - about 6 feet from the guitar, zoomed in slightly:



excuse the mess

Here's the full-size image:

http://newcenstein.com/D40/D40-3-2.jpg

You can see some blur around the edges and around the shiny parts.


Here's the same pic with the Sony, also zoomed in (zoomed in a bit more, actually).



and full size

http://newcenstein.com/D40/vsd40-2.jpg

You can see much more blur - the pickups are almost illegible, and the wood shelf in the background has splotches of color. Looks like a compression issue, even though it's set to Fine (best quality, larger file size, minimal compression).


Granted this is still 6MP vs 3MP, so the details will be better.


Gonna look into a set of good lenses - like the included one but better quality, and maybe a telephoto.

Anyone tried those Body Armor protector things?

[Newc]

And what about telecope/astrophotography lenses? That's something I've always been interested in since I was a kid going to the planetarium or watching meteor showers, or wishing I had a camera on those nights when the moon was f'n huge


Which would yield the best results - a good telescope with a camera-mounting adaptor or a "made for use with cameras" telescope? I'd assume they're the same thing, but can you get the stand-alone telescope and camera mounting ring for less money than a comparably-powered "built for cameras" rig? Maybe more power out of one for the same cost as the other?

[Spivonious]

You're not going to get a digital SLR for under $500... not new anyway.
Amazon still has some Rebel XS kits available for $529.
It does come with the cheap kit lens, but it will work just fine for most consumer applications.

Another option is the Canon Powershot SX10IS.
Not an SLR per se, but similar format.
Under $400, has manual controls, image stabilizer, uses the latest DIGIC 4 image processor found in the higher end Canon DSLR's and also uses the latest SDHC memory cards as well as standard SD cards.
Good reviews as well.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091703canon_sx1is_sx10is.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/

Gives the best, unbiased, side by side comparison of digital cameras.
I've found the reviews to be pretty spot on with my own personal experience.

As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Canon cameras. Nikon's are great too, just hate their user interface on their SLR's. Not intuitive at all.

That Powershot looks nice. Jumping up to the SX1 IS is very tempting though, with its HD movies and 4 fps photo taking speed, but then I'm up at $600.

Would you say that the SX series is essentially the Rebel series with a fixed lense?

[rjohnstone]

Would you say that the SX series is essentially the Rebel series with a fixed lense?

Pretty much.
They share a lot of the same components, including the image processor.

[roodyrocker]

Newc, when comparing photos, you need to know what the aperture was on each shot. Thats your F stop. This will affect the depth of field and some pics may turn out blurrier than others based on this alone. A larger number F stop, F22 for example will have much more depth of field than say F4.5. Just something to pay attention to when comparing your cameras besides the megapixel count
Nice Green Charvie btw!